Dellin wrote:I'm assuming these clauses are actually meant to go with each other, since by "limiting the capacity to properly protect animals," I am assuming you mean by not outlawing "abandonment, neglect..." etc. Though some conditions related to starvation/dehydration could cause tissue damage, I can kind of see where you are coming from there. The other words are mostly fluff. "Neglect" is the same as either abandonment or withholding food and water and "cruelty" is everything, but not really anything on its own.
So, here, I sort of agree, maybe a larger net should have been cast, but that can be a national issue. Also, if you want a wider net to be cast, I'd have to see a replacement before ever supporting a repeal.
I do not personally write new legislation. I wrote a couple of pieces in the early days of the WA(WA#4 and WA#7), but I leave any replacements to others(and these days only write repeals). That said, I was a bit worried about the "list" in that clause. I can and probably will pare it down.
This makes no sense. All PAWS does is " create and edit a list of feeling species protected under this legislation and determines whether an action is necessary or reasonable if national governments are unable to reach a decision."
Their first function doesn't need more than an annual meeting; arguably, the second function could need more meetings, but it's a little micromanagey to begin with, and local/national jurisdictions should be dealing with the cases anyways. Also, if you want more meetings, a replacement would be nice to see.
You'd think so, but if a species is discovered the day after the annual meeting... nations would be under no obligation to protect it until the next meeting. Assuming it's a particularly troublesome species, a nation could eliminate it entirely in much less than a year.
And I'd like to say again that a replacement does not have to be presented in order for a repeal to make good sense. The majority of nations do not lack laws on a national level to deal with this issue. This resolution is incredibly flawed, and deserves a repeal. If it is replaced afterwards with a more reasonable piece that takes some of my arguments into account, I would not at all be annoyed. In fact, if you believe that a replacement should be ready before a repeal takes place, I urge you to write one.
Awkward sentence. And why. So, if you only own an animal for a day, you are free to beat and torture it? (Though, the definition of owner per the resolution is after31 days, which seems reasonable, albeit 31 days is arbitrary and not applicable to different experiences of time.)
True, the word is wrong, but that's only a definition. It doesn't actually do anything. All that the mistake does is make it so that ownership of an animal is no longer defined by the fact that you owned that animals parents. It does absolutely nothing for the descendants.
First of all, definitions do things. In this resolutions "owners" are responsible 1-5, and those owners are defined by the definition clause. The word 'acquired' needs to change in my own draft(that's the real root of the awkward wording you're talking about). However... there are some very serious problems with using "descendants" instead of "ancestors" in that clause. For example, if I purchase an animal, I am responsible for, and the owner of, it's ancestors, since the clause specifically says that the purchasers of the descendants of an animal are an animals owners.
Further more, the 31 day issue: "and/or has provided food or shelter or medical care to an animal on that person’s property for more than 31 days."
This results in the very real fact that no matter who owns an animal originally, it can be transferred without permission if you can keep the animal for more than 31 days. Or if you happen to go feed the ducks at the park. The only distinction it makes is between wild or domesticated animals, not already owned or unowned animals.
It also brings us to one of the worst flaws of the resolution: It does not allow for transference of responsibility. Now, we can wiggle around that by saying that the definition of "owner" only applies to the resolution in question(even if the resolution itself doesn't say that). That'll get us around some serious property rights issues.
But that means that when you purchase an animal, the definitions of who is responsible for preventing abuse are non-transferable. Anyone who purchases the animal or provides shelter, food, or medical care for longer than 31 days is responsible for any abuse committed by any future owners.
The key is in the "and/or" bit. The "and" specifically implies there can be two or more owners.
Lets take a look at the average life of an animal, and see where the owner clause would kick in due to the flaws in the definitions bit.
1) Dog is born. Is ownerless as per the resolutions definition.
2) 31 days pass and the current person providing food and shelter becomes the new "owner". They are responsible for stopping abuse. 1st owner.
3) Dog is purchased by a family. Dog's mother and father and any living relatives it is directly descended from are now the responsibilities of the new owner. Also the dog itself. 2nd owner.
4) Dog gets sick, goes to vet. Vet provides medical care, food, and shelter for two months as dog is nursed back to health. Vet is now new owner of dog. 3rd owner.
5) Dog returns home from vet. Sometime later family goes on vacation for 6 weeks. Leaves housesitter in charge of pets. On day 32: 4th owner.
6) Dog is stolen by neighbor. Kept inside for 5 months. Neighbor is now the 5th owner.
7) Dog is returned to 2nd owner. 2nd owner expires, dog is inherited by child. After 31 days 6th owner.
Now, we're up to 6 different "owners", but that is only the tip of the iceberg. There is nothing to say that these incidents involve
just one person. The person providing care could easily be more than one person at once. The vet has assistants for example, for example. There could be 4 people on the hook there for the responsibilities.
And the resolution doesn't make a distinction as to whether the acts themselves could be avoided by the person who is to be punished, but rather if they could be avoided by the person who is perpetrating the abuse. If the final owner abuses that dog, every single previous owner is on the hook by law for not preventing it.
No, a flawed definition is by it's very nature something for which to remove a resolution.
This resolution is incredibly flawed, with particular focus on the definitions(which are in fact the most important part of any resolution). In order for the debate on how best to help prevent abuse to move forward, this piece has to go.
Posted: Sun Sep 29, 2013 7:16 am
